Interesting points brought up by everyone. I wouldn't agree with really moving the Slams around or rotating them or even changing them: like Deb said, too much history...

I know this is off-topic (because it sort of makes the season longer ), but they should add like a Mixed Doubles tournament after the YEC with the top 8 singles players from the ATP and the WTA, where they pick names out of a hat and then they play a round robin (like the YEC, two groups), and then the two teams with the best results move on to a final. It could be entertaining, I mean imagine Maria playing with Guillermo. The Giantess and her dwarf!

OK, so the concept of rotating Slams didn't work for ya'll, huh? It is quite radical, to be sure, but I'm a firm believer in asking for more than what you're willing to accept. One of the reasons I was sure it’d be the toughest thing to consider was finally elicited here

Quote:

Originally Posted by PinkFeatherBoa

I'm very self, self, self, so got as far as the rotating Wimbledon and got . Nobody is touching wimbledon, that is my home for a whole fortnight and where would I live then.

We're all selfish...and don’t want to lose what we’ve got. Even though I’ve only ever been to the USO once, the thought that it wouldn’t take place (or be incarnated every other year as a Masters event) was almost too much to bear.

Just keep in mind one of the goals was to shorten the overall year...significantly...yet increase the geographical areas and populations served. Something had to give.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carito_90

It is impossible, and I repeat, IMPOSSIBLE to have a Grand Slam held in Argentina or any country of South America. They had been considering having a TMS tourney and it's still quite impossible as well. Let alone a Grand Slam.

The money that runs here is not enough to hold such a huge tournament. Absolutely not enough. Even if tennis here is way more popular than in the US or some countries in Europe, having a GS here cannot even be considered, unfortunately.

I wish it would but yeah.

I know...it's so The ATP has ignored one of its biggest and most loyal fan bases. They're finally getting a clue in Asia, although sadly, those governments have had to kick in substantial funds to make the ATP pay attention. Of course, it’s taken decades for Asian economies to have that kind of money...and I’m not sure of (and certainly not familiar with) the South American prospects. And it may be more of a catch-22. No one’s willing to invest there (and not just about tennis) because there’s no money to be made there (or at least that’s the perception). But maybe there’s no money to be made, because there’s none being spent (via investment). Sorry, Caro...I knew it’d be one of the riskier aspects to float out there, but in the grander scheme of things, it deserved its moment.

Now...onto Deb’s equally as long-winded dissertation (j/k... )

Quote:

Originally Posted by Debstah

~Wimbledon every other year?? Sorry, gotta disagree with that. It's the most famous tennis tournament in the world, I think, it's the most traditional, the one tourney the most associated with "tennis" - it's gotta stay the way it is.

Actually, I think some of the ‘clay’ fans might disagree with you on it being the most associated with tennis. And I’ll readily admit it’s one of the most traditional. But times change. The USO used to be contested on grass too...and that’s long gone. I enjoy the fortnight too...but making its ‘pair’ Davis Cup seemed to be a nice balance. Wimbledon would continue to stand alone...as the grass season championship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Debstah

~More grass - it used to be the single biggest surface for tennis. It's easier on the body than some others (points are shorter, it's a soft forgiving surface), and encourages certain skills (hello volleying where have you gone ). I think it's tragic that the pre-wimby grass schedule is only 2 weeks long, considering the tradition of the sport and that 3 of the 4 slams used to be on it, etc. And why is Newport after Wimbledon?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PinkFeatherBoa

edit: As a fellow Tim fan, Marlene, I thought you of all people would not be advocating less Wimbledon's. What of poor Tim's chances then?

As Robert said, Tim’s chances are nil and none. Personally, I’d love to see more grass tournaments, but that’s just not going to happen. The surface is too expensive to maintain; that’s why the ‘majors’ have dropped it as a surface. Point well taken on Newport. Get rid of it, or move it before Wimby.

Back to Deb again...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Debstah

~Point well-taken that there's a lot of moving around in other sports. But, these are the Grand Slams - rooted in long histories and traditions, I mean, NASCAR can move events around all it wants, but it's not gonna move the Indy 500. That'd just be...wrong. There's just too much tradition to mess with the slams. I feel quite strongly about this.

Some NASCAR fan you are. The Indy 500 is a Formula One event. The stockcar event held at the same facility (but not the same track) is the Brickyard 500. And there’s some precedence for NASCAR moving its ‘big’ races around. Although the Daytona 500 is still in Daytona (although it’s gone from being on the beach itself to a track), what constituted their ‘big’ races has changed over the years. And now that they’ve got a Points Race too, there’s even less emphasis on individual races.

Geez, you’d think I like car racing...but I HATE it. A useless competition. It’s not even a sport in my book. Bah!

Quote:

~Totally agree with DC every other year, or some other radical change. Something's gotta happen.

So it’s OK to change an ‘event’ that been around since for over 100 years...but the other ‘main’ events have to stay untouched?

Quote:

~Rankings/seeding: I Don't really have a problem with the way things are right now, except for a couple things. I hate the Race - until October or so, it's stupid, meaningless, and overly confusing. I don't necessarily disagree with your seeding suggestions, but it might be to confusing to practically implement, and it would also cause major logistics problems.

Agreed, it’s the least fleshed out part of my thoughts. But the current system is overly complicated. I consider myself a knowledgeable, intelligent fan and I’ve given up. If jtipson isn’t around, I’m lost.

Quote:

And also, who would be the #1 seed for the first tourneys of the year?

The prior ‘Slam’ winner of that ‘season’. For example. Since Rafa won the Clay Slam (RG or wherever), he’d be the #1 seed for the first clay tournament of the next year. When they moved to grass, it’d be Roger (since he won Wimby). The successive weeks would look only at the week immediately preceding it. So, say if a top player withdrew or didn’t even play the prior week, he starts out with the other ‘grubs.’ An added incentive to play every week, IMHO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Debstah

~Tourney cutoffs should be less than 6 weeks.

~totally agree that something has to be done to entice the players not to skip these tourneys.

~also, limit appearance fees at smaller tourneys

~Another thought: More tourneys with Saturday finals, where appropriate (or start on Tuesday instead of Monday, also where appropriate).

These are all heads up suggestions...and could realistically be implemented NOW!

Again, gang...thanks for much for taking the time to read my proposal and respond seriously. Although I didn’t get that good night sleep I was hoping for, my mind had indeed moved onto to something else.

Even if the Slams stayed in the Same place they currently are at, I think they should move many of the Masters Series Tournaments from U.S.A and Europe to Asia and South America. Like maybe move the Clay Tournaments to South America. Move the Early American Masters Series to Asia or something like that. Of course it would need to be clarified a bit but I would rather they got rid of the smaller tournaments to shorten the schedule and therefore place more emphasis on the Masters and Grand Slams so that we could see the top players play more often and not just go where they get Fees for just showing up.

~Wimbledon every other year?? Sorry, gotta disagree with that. It's the most famous tennis tournament in the world, I think, it's the most traditional, the one tourney the most associated with "tennis" - it's gotta stay the way it is.

~Towards that end, I think we should leave the slams alone (in terms of location and surface - except that I'd like to see Rebound Ace scrapped for some other kind of slow HC that's not as injury-prone)

Agree. GS should stay the way they are.

Quote:

~Like you, I don't think there should be multiple seasons going on at once. There should be no clay after RG and CERTAINLY no clay after Wimby and the USO - make those guys play on HC in the US. There's no HC season in the US during the clay season. If the non-clay guys decide not to play in Europe on clay that's their problem and if the clay guys don't wanna play on US HC before the USO, that's their problem, but all those little clay tourneys after RG got to go, or move some of them up during the real clay season.

Getting rid of those clay tourneys after the USO would allow the whole fall schedule to be moved up a week or two, thus ending the season that much earlier.

Too true. In fact, the commentator during the TMC has been mentioning something about this every time clay-courters like Gaudio plays.

I have something in mind, but that would make things more complicated in terms of keeping track with points/rankings. Not necessarily for the entry rankings, but for the race rankings, instead of taking points from the 5 'best of the rest' events, it has to be limited according to the surface, i.e., you can't have all 5 on clay, or all 5 on HC. It should be of a good proportion, to ensure there's no 'fluke cases', and that really does give a better picture of who's really done well over the year, and not during a particular 'season'...

Quote:

~More grass - it used to be the single biggest surface for tennis. It's easier on the body than some others (points are shorter, it's a soft forgiving surface), and encourages certain skills (hello volleying where have you gone ). I think it's tragic that the pre-wimby grass schedule is only 2 weeks long, considering the tradition of the sport and that 3 of the 4 slams used to be on it, etc. And why is Newport after Wimbledon?

With a majority of dominating players are clay-courters, we're getting a lot more complaints about playing on grass. Personally, the grass court season is my favourite -- too bad it's only a month, 2 of which are taken up by Wimbledon. I really do hope there will be a Masters event (at least) on grass really soon... Clay-courters who hate to play on grass can take a rest -- same case with say, Andy, who tends to take weeks off the clay-court season